- 4 -
handed to the front desk clerk of the Days Inn with the
understanding that the envelope would be picked up later that day
by FedEx; that the front desk clerk placed the envelope in the
hotel’s “pickup box”; and that, upon returning to the hotel after
the trade show later that day, she inquired about the envelope
and was told by a front desk clerk that the “pickup box” was
empty. In sum, petitioner asserts that “There was no reason for
me to think that my FEDEX package had not been picked up on the
8th.”
This matter was called for hearing at the Court’s motions
session in Washington, D.C. Counsel for respondent appeared and
offered argument in support of respondent’s motion to dismiss.
In contrast, there was no appearance by or on behalf of
petitioner, nor did petitioner file a statement pursuant to Rule
50(c), the provisions of which were explained in the Court’s
order calendaring respondent’s motion for hearing.
Discussion
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may
exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by
Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). This
Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on the
issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed
petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27
(1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011